Creationist Hugh Ross argues that the fundamental constants of nature
are so precisely tuned that they could not have occurred without an
intelligent designer.

Evolution is Not the Whole Story

s the bankruptcy
of creation "science" becomes increasingly recognized, a new catch
phrase, intelligent design, has been adopted by those who
persist in their attempts to inject creationism into the science
curriculum (see, for example, Of Pandas and People, Davis 1993;
Matsumura 1995 and Cole 1995 report on attempts to introduce
Pandas into schools). Intelligent design is a more subtle term
than creation science, one that has far broader implications than the
genesis of life on a minor planet in the corner of a minor galaxy.
The argument that the material universe resulted from conscious action
outside itself can sound convincing, even to those who accept
biological evolution as established fact. Many who agree that
biblical creation is not an appropriate part of the science
curriculum, because it is not science, may not object to including
material that argues with greater sophistication that the universe as
a whole shows evidence for design.

I can foresee proponents of intelligent design campaigning for
science lessons to include statements of the sort we often read today
in books and the popular press, that modern physics and cosmology have
uncovered evidence for intelligence in the structure of the universe
and this intelligence seems to act with us in mind (Rolston III, 1986;
Wright, 1992; Begley, 1994). In fact, science has done no such thing.
Just as we must continue to educate parents and teachers on the facts
of evolution, we must also inform them that science has by no means
confirmed the traditional belief in a created universe with humanity
at its center.

Indeed, if anything science indicates quite the opposite.
Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth is no
more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach. While a
created, human-centered universe can probably never be ruled out,
nothing in our current understanding of cosmology and physics requires
it. Furthermore, we are beginning to understand the possible physical
mechanisms for the appearance of matter from nothing, and for
organization without design.

Evolutionists have successfully refuted the usual argument for
design that is grounded on the intricacy of biological life. They
have convincingly demonstrated, to any rational person, that
complexity sufficient for life could readily have emerged naturally in
the primeval chemical stew. However, the processes of biological
evolution on earth still depended on the pre-existence, billions of
years ago, of the particles and "laws" of physics.

For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred
Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA
assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one (Hoyle, 1981).
This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by
chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of
physics.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as
we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion
years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in
the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and
molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting
ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

These forces must have been in operation within seconds of the
start of the big bang, 10-15 billion years ago, to allow for the
formation of protons and neutrons out of quarks and their storage in
stable hydrogen and deuterium atoms. Free neutrons disintegrate in
minutes. To be able to hang around for billions of years so that they
could later join with protons in making chemical elements in stars,
neutrons had to be bound in deuterons and other light nuclei where
energetics prevented their decay.

Gravity was needed to gather atoms together into stars and to
compress stellar cores, raising the core temperatures to tens of
millions of degrees. These high temperatures made nuclear reactions
possible, and over billions of years the elements of the chemical
periodic table were synthesized as the by-product.

When the nuclear fuel in the more massive, faster-burning
stars was spent, the laws of physics called for them to explode as
supernovae, sending into space the elements manufactured in their
cores. In space, gravity could gather these elements into planets
circling the smaller, longer-lived stars. Finally, after about ten
billion years, the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements on a
small planet attached to a small, stable star could begin the process
of evolution toward the complex structures we call life.

In recent years, creationist theologians, and even a few
physicists, have heavily promoted what they claim is a remarkable
fine-tuning of the basic laws and constants of physics, without which
life as we know it would never have developed (Barrow, 1986; Rolston
III). If the universe had appeared with slight variations in the
strengths of the fundamental forces or the masses of elementary
particles, that universe would be pure hydrogen at one extreme, or
pure helium at the other. Neither would have allowed for the eventual
production of heavy elements, such as carbon, necessary for life.

Similarly, if gravity had not been many orders of magnitude
weaker than electromagnetism, stars would not have lived long enough
to produce the elements of life. Long before they could fabricate
heavy chemical elements, stars would have collapsed. Only the fact
that the gravitational force was forty orders of magnitude weaker
prevented this from happening.

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger
Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our
particular set of physical properties is one part in
1010123 (Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither
Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible
universes formed with different properties could still have lead to
some form of life. If it is half, then the probability for
life is fifty percent.

Ignoring this absent link in their chain of logic, promoters
of intelligent design put forward the so-called anthropic
coincidences as evidence for a universe that was created with
humans in mind. I have heard Christian philosopher William Lane Craig
make this claim in a debate on the existence of God. In the same
debate, Craig contended that the great age of the universe, which
dwarfs human history, is in fact a sign of God's plan for humanity
because billions of years were needed to allow life to evolve. (Craig
evidently accepts evolution). You would have thought God could be a
lot more efficient. And Craig did not rationalize why humanity rather
than cockroaches was the goal God had in mind.

So as you see, we have a lot more explaining to do after we
explain how life developed on earth by natural processes. Even if
life evolved naturally on earth with no outside interference, the
existence of stars and planets, quarks and electrons, and the very
laws of physics themselves can be presented as evidence for
intelligent design to the universe. Furthermore, given the
egocentrism that seems to characterize the human race, convincing
people that the universe was designed with them in mind is as easy as
convincing a child that candy is good for him.

Perhaps the universe was created for the sole purpose of
producing you and me. I have no objection to discussing the
possibility, as long as the discussion is critical, rational, and
objective. The most common argument that is still given by believers
when they are asked to present scientific evidence for a
creator is: "How can all of this (gesturing to the world around us)
have happened by chance?" As we have seen, the most brilliant
exposition of the case for evolution will not answer this question,
because it still presumes the pre-existence of laws of physics and
values of physical constants that had to be delicately balanced for
human (and cockroach) life to evolve.

The Argument from Probability

Before addressing the question of how the laws of
physics can have come about in the absence of intelligent
design, let me provide a response to the arguments from
probability outlined above.

If we properly compute, according to statistical theory, the
probability for the universe existing with the properties it has, the
result is unity! The universe exists with one hundred percent
probability (unless you are an idealist who believes everything exists
only in your own mind). On the other hand, the probability for one of
a random set of universes being our particular universe is a different
question. And the probability that one of a random set of universes
is a universe that supports some form of life is a third
question. I submit it is this last question that is the important one
and that we have no reason to be sure that this probability is small.

I have made some estimates of the probability that a chance
distribution of physical constants can produce a universe with
properties sufficient that some form of life would have likely had
sufficient time to evolve. In this study, I randomly varied the
constants of physics (I assume the same laws of physics as exist in
our universe, since I know no other) over a range of ten orders of
magnitude around their existing values. For each resulting "toy"
universe, I computed various quantities such as the size of atoms and
the lifetimes of stars. I found that almost all combinations of
physical constants lead to universes, albeit strange ones, that would
live long enough for some type of complexity to form (Stenger 1995:
chapter 8). This is illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1.
Distribution of stellar lifetimes for 100 random universes in which
four basic physics constants (the proton and electron masses and the
strengths of the electromagnetic and strong forces) are varied by ten
orders of magnitude around their existing values in our universe.
Otherwise, the laws of physics are unchanged. Note that in well over
half the universes, stars live at least a billion years. From Stenger
1995.

Every shuffle of a deck of cards leads to a 52-card sequence
that has low a priori probability, but has unit probability
once the cards are all on the table. Similarly, the "fine-tuning" of
the constants of physics, said to be so unlikely, could very well have
been random; we just happen to be in the universe that turned up in
that particular deal of the cards.

Note that my thesis does not require more than one universe to
exist, although some cosmological theories propose this. Even if ours
is the only universe, and that universe happened by chance, we have no
basis to conclude that a universe without some form of life was so
unlikely as to have required a miracle.

Simplicity and Physical Law

So the argument from probability fails. Many sets of physical
constants could have produced a universe with life, albeit life very
unlike our own. But what about the laws of physics themselves? Can
we take their mere existence as evidence for intelligent
design?

Let me begin by addressing two commonsense notions: (1) you cannot get
something from nothing, and (2) the order of the universe requires the
pre-existence of an active intelligence to do the ordering. I will
leave it to the theologians to explain how the postulate of a creator
God solves the problem of creation ex nihilo, since God is
something that, itself, must have come, uncreated, from nothing.
Instead I will address the physics issues implied by the creation of
the universe from nothing. In physics terms, creation ex
nihilo appears to violate both the first and second laws of
thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics is equivalent to the principle
of conservation of energy: the total energy of a closed system is
constant; any energy change must be compensated by a corresponding
inflow or outflow from the system.

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from "nothing," energy
conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of
matter. Some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of
the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that
results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter
balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total
energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the
first law was not violated.

The second law of thermodynamics requires that the
entropy, or disorder, of the universe must increase or at least
stay constant with time. This would seem to imply that the universe
started out in a greater state of order than it has today, and so must
have been designed.

However, this argument holds only for a universe of constant
volume. The maximum entropy of any object is that of a black hole of
the same volume. In an expanding universe, the maximum allowable
entropy of the universe is continually increasing, allowing more and
more room for order to form as time goes by. If we extrapolate the
big bang back to the earliest definable time, the so-called Planck
time (10-43 second), we find that universe started out
in a condition of maximum entropy -- total chaos. The universe had no
order at the earliest definable instant. If there was a creator, it
had nothing to create.

Note also that one cannot ask, much less answer, "What
happened before the big bang?" Since no time earlier than the Planck
time can be logically defined, the whole notion of time before the big
bang is meaningless.

Furthermore, within the framework of Einstein's relativity, time is
the fourth dimension of spacetime. Defining this fourth dimension as
ict, where t is what you read on a clock, i =
sqrt(-1), and c is the speed of light, the coordinates of time
and space are interchangeable. In short, time is inextricably
intertwined with space and came into being "when" or "where" (language
is inadequate to mathematics here) spacetime came into being.

Spontaneous Order

So, where did the order of the universe come from, if it did
not exist at the "beginning"? Where did the laws of physics come
from, if not from some great lawgiver? We are now beginning to grasp
how the laws of physics could have come about naturally, as the
universe spontaneously exploded in the big bang.

To understand this, we first have to recognize the prejudice
that is built into the whole concept of physical law. When Newton
developed mechanics and gravity, the Judeo-Christian notion of
God-given law was already deeply engraved in his thinking, by his
culture. Even today, science is interpreted by public, media, and
scientists alike as the process of learning the "mind of God."[1]

However, the laws of physics, at least in their formal
expressions, are no less human inventions than the laws by which we
govern ourselves. They represent our imperfect attempts at economical
and useful descriptions of the observations we make with our senses
and instruments. This is not to say we subjectively determine how the
universe behaves, or that it has no orderly behavior. Few scientists
deny that an objective, ordered reality exists that is independent of
human life and experience. We simply have to recognize that the
concept of "natural law" carries with it certain metaphysical baggage
that is tied to our traditional, pre-scientific modes of thought. We
are going a step beyond logic to conclude that the existence in the
universe of order, which we conventionally label as the laws of
nature, implies a cosmic lawgiver.

We are gradually learning that several of the laws of physics,
those that seem the most universal and profound, are in fact little
more than statements about the simplicity of nature that can almost go
unsaid. The "laws" of energy, momentum, and angular momentum
conservation have been shown to be statements about the homogeneity of
space and time. The first law of thermodynamics, conservation of
energy, results from there being no unique moment in
time.[2] Conservation of momentum follows from the
Copernican principle that there is no preferred position in space.
Other conservation laws, such as charge and nucleon number, also arise
from analogous assumptions of simplicity.

For the mathematically inclined, the conserved quantities are
generators of the symmetry transformations involved. A
homogeneous universe, one with a high level of symmetry, is the
simplest of all possible universes, just the kind we would expect to
happen by accident. In such a universe, many conservation laws will
automatically exist.

In general, the conservation laws need no explanation beyond
the mathematical symbols used to represent the corresponding symmetry.
On the other hand, an observed violation of a conservation law would
demand an explanation, for then we would have evidence for a deviation
from simplicity and homogeneity. To explain this deviation, we have
to go beyond the assumptions that require the fewest parameters, that
is, are the most economical.

By an equally simple but somewhat different argument, the
second law of thermodynamics is found not to be some underlying
principle of the universe, but rather an arbitrary convention we
humans make in defining the direction of time. Nothing in known
fundamental physics forbids the violation of the second law. No
mechanical principle prevents the air emptying from a room when you
open the door, killing everyone inside. Physics does not forbid a
human from growing younger or the dead rising! All that has to happen
for these "miraculous" events is that the molecules involved are
accidentally moving in the right direction at the right instant. Of
course these miracles are not observed to happen except in fantasies,
but only because they are so highly unlikely.

We introduce the second "law" to codify what all of human
experience testifies, that air does not empty from a room, people do
not grow younger, and the dead do not rise. But these events are not
impossible, just highly improbable. Influenced, like Newton, by our
culture, we falsely state that these unlikely events cannot happen
because the second law "forbids" them from doing so.

The second law of thermodynamics, along with the arrow of time
and the notions of causality and determinism, arise as statistical
statements about the likelihood of events that emerge as principles we
invent to describe the world of everyday experiences.

Other, more complex and less universal laws of physics appear
to arise from spontaneously broken symmetries. When a quantity
such as momentum is observed not to be conserved, we introduce the
notion of a "force" to break the corresponding spatial symmetry. By
this means, the force laws and other principles that give structure to
the universe arise as spontaneously broken symmetries--accidental,
uncaused events that occurred in the first fraction of a second of the
big bang as the expanding universe cooled. The process can be likened
to the formation of structure in a snowflake from water vapor, or the
magnetizing of a bar of iron cooled below the Curie temperature.

The Appearance of Structure

While the details of the symmetry-breaking mechanism referred
to here are not fully developed, and further work may negate this
picture, we have at least one highly successful example of how the
process of spontaneous structure formation from underlying symmetry
and chaos can have come about. The current theory of elementary
particles, the so-called Standard Model of quarks and leptons
(the electron and neutrino are examples of leptons), agrees with all
existing observations about the material world. In two decades since
its inception, no violation of the Standard Model has been observed.

Within the framework of this model, electromagnetic and weak
nuclear forces are viewed as low-energy manifestations of a single,
unified electroweak force that applies at higher energies and
smaller distances. At the level of most observations, these forces
are vastly different. The electromagnetic force acts over macroscopic
distances, while the electroweak force is confined to the atomic
nucleus. The two forces differ enormously in strength. Yet the
Standard Model treats them in a unified fashion at high energies, and
explains their differing structure by means of spontaneous symmetry
breaking that occurs at lower energies.

Further progress in understanding these fundamental mechanisms
has been slowed by the canceling of the Superconducting Supercollider
that would have probed beyond the Standard Model. A less ambitious
(although still gigantic) project is going ahead in Europe, but it
will be a new millennium before physicists have the data they will
need to determine whether spontaneous symmetry breaking is indeed the
process by which the laws of physics evolved in the first fraction of
a second of the big bang. Currently, all we can say is that we have
one firm example, and many theoretical suggestions, that will not be
tested experimentally for another decade. Even if they all fail these
tests, it seems highly unlikely that the process will yield evidence
for the creator of Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology.

Implications for Education

In critically examining evidence for or against intelligent
design to the universe, it must be understood that we are following
the traditional practice of science, seeking a scientific explanation
for observations about the universe that have been previously
attributed to the action of supernatural deity. Believers will call
us nasty names, like "atheist" and "secular humanist," and accuse us
of undermining faith and morality.

Certainly we cannot be dogmatic in our approach, or appear to
be preaching a religion of "scientism." If we do, then we have no
more right to a piece of the science curriculum than the religionists.

As in any scientific investigation, we must emphasize our
commitment to the scientific process and agree to accept whatever the
conclusion of that process may be. If that conclusion is evidence for
supernatural intelligent design, then so be it. But if we cannot find
such evidence, then we should not feel compelled to soothe the
sensitivities of believers by leaving unchallenged the assertion that
their sectarian prejudices have scientific merit. We must speak out
forcefully whenever anyone claims scientific authority for beliefs
that fail the objective tests of scientific method.

I realize that the ideas I have covered in this essay will be
very difficult to explain in the classroom, even at the university
level where few students study physics at anything more than a
minimal, descriptive level--if they study it at all. Nevertheless, we
should not leave the field open to those who demonstrate no commitment
to scientific truth.

If teachers cannot understand or explain the developments in
modern physics I have outlined above, they can at least emphasize the
need to pursue these issues in an open, objective, and rational
fashion. They should point out the logical flaws in the anthropic
probability argument, that we must count all the possible ways that
life may have developed. And they can question the claim that
creation ex nihilo violates the laws of physics, that science
requires a miracle to produce the universe.

At the least, teachers should be made aware of the fact that
modern physics and cosmology provide no compulsion to introduce the
uneconomical hypothesis of a biblical creator. They must resist those
who would attempt to force their personal beliefs into the classroom
through the back door of "intelligent design."

The process in which we are engaged is the search for rational
evidence for or against intelligent design. It does not suffice to
say that intelligent design is possible, and proponents of intelligent
design have no right to re-cast the question as one in which the
non-existence of intelligent design must be proven. Within the
framework of Occam's razor, intelligent design is an added hypothesis
and the proponent's burden is to demonstrate why it is necessary to
make this hypothesis. I have argued that no evidence or rational
argument for intelligent design can be found in either the data or the
theories of modern physics and cosmology. If the hypothesis of
intelligent design is to be discussed in science classrooms, then good
science methodology demands that we make clear that this is an
uneconomical hypothesis that is not required by existing scientific
knowledge.

The author is grateful to Taner Edis and John Forester for their
comments on this essay.

Wright, Robert 1992. "What Does Science Tell Us About
God?" Time December 28: 38.

Notes

[1] The "mind of God" were the final words of
Stephen Hawking's remarkable best-seller, A Brief History of
Time (Hawking, 1988). This catchy phrase was absconded by Paul
Davies for the title his book, The Mind of God: The Scientific
Basis for a Rational World (Davies, 1992). Physicist Davies has
won a million dollar prize for his writings on religion and science.

[2] Admittedly, the first moment of the universe was
unique, but the implied violation of conservation of energy is exactly
what gives us the zero point energy mentioned earlier in the text.